LOSE THE GUNS
The recent tragic shootings in Georgia and Wisconsin will hopefully encourage more debate on gun control. According to the CDC 12,000 Americans were killed intentionally by firearms in 2003. To me that's a staggering number. I wonder whether Brian Nichols would have been able to cause the mayhem he did if the deputy he disarmed had been carrying a can of mace instead of a handgun. The Constitution should protect people's rights but at some point we should address whether there is any real benefit having guns in society.
posted by mochi at 4:20 PM
15 Comments:
So you think that stronger gun control laws would have stopped the shooting in Atlanta? The shooting in Atlanta was caused by poorly designed/implemented procedures inside of a courthouse. Taking away firearms from private citizens would have done nothings to stop this horrible event. By the way, I'm a liberal in favor of gun control. I am also someone who is tired of idealogy clouding how individuals interpret the news/world around them.
Hey, a fellow in another blog (http://4commonsensenow.blogspot.com/2005/03/brother-can-you-spare-gun.html) just made me notice something interesting, that never occurred to me before. Maybe this ha already been noticed before and I am simply slow. But, the 2nd amendment states that the purpose for citizens to keep and bear arms is to maintain a well regulated militia. Well regulated! Doesn't that sound like the founding fathers were calling for gun control? It sure does to me...
Anonymous, why do police in Japan not need to carry guns?
How do you address what happened in London today? Need for more AXE control? There are more people killed every year from knives in the United States than from guns--do we need knife control? Think, Guys! For a thought out perspective read:
http://newssnipet.blogspot.com/2005/03/get-your-head-out-of-sand-people.html
Sorry its been a while since I chimed in. Have been tied up with work.
Cheers, Mochi!
-jack
Oh, and SheaNC, if you really want to know the intent of the 2nd Amendment go read what the framers and sponsors of it said its purpose was! A simple article can be found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/686595/posts
It will shock you!
One more note. One theme common with left-leaners is their criticisms of George Bush and his "fascism". King George ran a "fascist" regime also, and in order to overthrow it the PEOPLE needed weaponry to fight their own government. The POWER of the Constitution of the United States is that it was the first DEMOCRATIC document to limit the powers of government while increasing the powers of the individual. THIS I know most liberals would appreciate. The power is granted to the people in their right to keep and bear arms--arms that can be used if necessary to be brought to bear against the powers of tyranny should it rise. Therefore when you speak out in favor of more government control over individuals, the assumption of power by the government OVER the individual, the limitation of individuals to have the means to rise up and defend themselves against tyranny, then you are advocating the same FASCISM you accuse George Bush of! Make sense?
Jack,
Unless you have access to data the CDC doesn't you are wrong. This statement, "There are more people killed every year from knives in the United States than from guns", is bullshit. About 12,000 people were killed by guns in 2003. 5,000 were killed by other means. At a minimum it's less than half.
From Fox News - Lets outlaw automobiles
Four Teens Killed in Vegas Bus Stop Crash
Monday, March 14, 2005
LAS VEGAS — A fourth teenager died after a car plowed into a municipal bus stop Monday morning in northwest Las Vegas (search).
Two girls and a boy were killed instantly in the 7:18 a.m. crash on Smoke Ranch Road (search) at Rock Springs Drive, police said.
A girl died a couple of hours later at University Medical Center.
Police said the 34-year-old female driver of a Ford Explorer failed an initial field sobriety test (search) — and might have been under the influence of drugs.
The woman, who was not hurt in the crash, was booked into Clark County jail on suspicion of driving under the influence.
Police said the woman lost control of her vehicle and hit the bus shelter before her vehicle overturned just before the Smoke Ranch overpass over the U.S. 95 freeway.
The scene was left strewn with broken glass and school books.
Smoke Ranch was closed from Tenaya Way to Rainbow Drive while police investigated.
Oops, got me Mochi. Actually I quoted the wrong statistic. There are more STABBINGS in the United States according to the United States Department of Justice than people killed by guns. Of course following your logic, we should outlaw cars, because in 2003 there were over 18,000 people killed by them in alcohol related accidents. (Hmm...lets outlaw autos AND alco). Another staggering number are the amount of people killed by flu which could be prevented by mandatory flu shots...want me to keep going?
So, you knocked down my generalization about knives, what about the rest of it, or does it hurt the brain too much? :)
Why would you compare non-fatal stabbings to shootings? If I cut myself while peeling an orange isn't that a non-fatal stabbing?
I would be all for banning cars if they were being used to intentionally mow down pedestrians. Work on those analogies.
Now I completely understand your 2nd amendment logic. Of course we all need guns to fight the next revolution. I should have thought of that.
“It will shock you!” …Oh, please.
Jack Mercer, the only thing that shocks me about your reference is that some people are gullible enough to swallow the ridiculous horseshit spewed from the extremist, pointy-hood-wearing claptrap factory that calls itself “freerepublic.” If you want to impress someone with that sort of inane gibberish, you’ll have better luck at an Ann Coulter blog.
And I with you’d get over these delusions of grandeur you always display whenever you address me. Every single time we’ve crossed paths, your message is that you are the enlightened one, and the rest of us exist to bask in your glow. You should be a middle-school civics teacher or something. At least then you could be reminded, from time to time, that you’re not all that.
By the way, I call George Bush a fascist because he is a fascist. And in case you haven’t noticed (and evidently you haven’t), the “left-leaners,” as you call them in one of your sweeping generalizations, are no more inclined to advocate government control than the “right-leaners.” In fact, the left-leaners more strongly advocate freedom from government control than the right-leaners do. You can have your so-called “patriot act.”
P.S.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/national/08terror.html?ei=5070&en=cbda603aa96c6a34&ex=1110862800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1110254459-e2z+O382FvWfPR2X6q8XWA
Mochi, first to reply to your comments. No, stabbing yourself while peeling an orange would not make it into the crime statistics. There are instances, MANY instances where cars have been used as weapons. An lastly, I understand that in the Revolutionary War many of the "liberals" headed to Canada--they were called loyalists and enjoyed their subjectivity and servitude to the crown.
SheaNC, first of all to correct some of your generalizations.
1. I did not vote for George Bush. He is a fiscal liberal and a Fabian socialist. The problem with ideologues on the left is that they don't recognize him as the ally that he is to them. They get all offended at his religious talk, and that's all they can hear. Socialism --the dogma of left leaners -- is all about government control, the great collective. You can't deny this because it is everything that is advocated on this blog.
2. The reason I often sound "granduer" because I educate myself from many sources, refuse to let ideology turn me into a goosestepping automaton, and think things through rather than feel my way. In addition, I am often right. When one is right they are often accused by others of being "holier-than-thou" or "having delusions of granduer". Answer me directly--directly refute what I say with factual information, give me logical well-thought out arguments--but no, most of you guys devolve into profanity, personal attacks, and vitriolic language. Know why? Because you have no argument to offer!
3. I did teach in the Penn State system--not high school, although the kids may have a chance at that point to learn to think for themselves. I'll consider it.
4. The Snipet was one of the first publications to speak out against the Patriot Act, and still does.
5. Go research the second ammendment from any other source, SheaNC. You'll see that it pretty much backs up what the FP says. Of course, you will dismiss it out of hand, because you have already formulated your opinion and ideology and nothing factual can change that. It has been my experience in dealing with liberals that you wrap your arguments in two things: "rights" and "feelings". Neither of these can be dealt with with on a reasoning basis, so I refer you to my site and its heading about pigs: "Never try to teach a pig to read. First, it can't be done, and second, it annoys the pig." Seems I have annoyed the pig. It is hard creating dialogue with liberals, as they always get personal. Well, continue your site. If your intent was to educate anyone, you lose--you just continue to preach to your choir.
Mochi,
You seem like an ok guy, but I guess I'll drop into other liberal blogs.
So long.
-Jack
ps. Couple of things to note: 1. There is no such thing as "the fiscally conservative liberal left"--there is no such thing as "fiscally conservative ANYTHING" in government now.
2. Beware activist judges. Judicial activism is unconstitutional and dangerous. You are advocating autocracy.
3. The frivolous doesn't matter.
(unedited, unspellchecked)
Okay, obviously wireless connectivity has some drawbacks... sorry about the failed attempts above. Also, this one's slightly edited to allow for caffiene/sugar issues which effected the original version.I am usually quite generous and considerate of differing opinions. But in this case... naw.
Well, Jack Mercer, you start off your bit by demonstrating an unawareness of the definition of the terms "conservative" and "liberal," unless you mistook a book of antonyms as a dictionary. "Conservative" refers to preserving the status quo. The English loyalists who chose not to join the revolution were the conservatives. They were called the Tories. They were the conservatives. The revolutionaries were liberals all; radical ones, too.
Now, about your critique of my comments:
1. I never even said you voted for Bush - why do you feel the need to make things up and assign those falsehoods to others? That's a silly way to try to make a point, isn't it?
Also, you forget, or are unaware, of a fundamental element of socialism. Socialsm is defined, partly, by government ownership of the means of production. This blog is populated by liberals who believe in free enterprise tempered by common sense and compassion. You won't succeed in redefining it no matter how many hours of Faux news you plug into for inspiration.
2. (You misuse the word "grandeur" - you're welcome) The relative success of your "education" is evident. You flatter yourself by proclaiming you are often right - that's ego, not accuracy. Your resistence to meaningful dialog is demonstrated in your dismissal of others' opinions as invalid and ignorant. Without knowing anyone's background or education, you apply these judgments. You seem to feel threatened by opposing opinions even before engaging them in debate - which is why you insult people rather than engage them in meaningful discussion.
3. They have my sympathies.
4. Good for you. When we oppose the patriot act we are usually called "socialists".
5. Again with your know-it-all approach. I have already read the 2nd amendment, thank you. Guess what: life existed before your presence - surprise! And, why should anyone need to research it from an "other source"? Do you have to filter it through your own little ideological lens to warp it enough to fit into your worldview?
And hat's wrong with applying "rights" and "feelings" to an opinion? Those, along with the truth, common sense, logic, and realism, are a pretty good foundation.
And so, you end it up by calling me a pig. What was it you said in item two? You chastise liberals for resorting to name-calling? Then you call me a pig? Fine. I'm a pig and you're a hypocrite (I prefer being the pig).
No wonder you have a "hard time," as you say, "creating dialog with liberals." The positions you take likely could not result in any satisfying conclusion.
Mochi, Luna, everyone... I apologize for bringing such negativity to my comment here. I promise that from now on I will be the kinder, gentler SheaNC :)
Certainly a measure of control for assault wespons is a good idea, but there's no way that putting restrictions on handguns for lawful citizens is ever going to fly.
I'm as liberal as they come, but it's obvious the gun is not the issue. It's the American.
Canada has a higher number of guns per capita, yet their gun related violence rates are a mere fraction of what they are in the States.
Why? It's the American culture of death. It's the death penalty. It's the wars. It's the freepers. It's the "if it leads, it bleeds" news media. It's the fear.
It is every single person that is afraid to walk out of their house.
Instead of throwing out generalizations about "gun control", maybe come up with a way to change why guns are used. That's the only way you'll ever make a difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home